“behind every great fortune is a great crime” or so the man said. There’s no reason to exempt Bloomberg from his past or to restrict his opponents from bring that past up. That’s the kind of “fairness” Trump demands while licensing himself to say whatever about those he demands be fair.
We’ve had a few CEO presidents. Bush and Trump come to mind. Running the USA and running a media empire are not at all similar other than both need to be run. Like a butcher asking to be a surgeon because he’s been cutting up flash for 30 years. If Bloomberg can’t take the heat he can get the hell out of the kitchen and that cannot be done too fast. He’s a horrible man.
She hasn’t doxxed anyone. Releasing them from their NDA’s means they can speak out or not speak as they choose. You know, like regular human beings.
I doubt she has spoken with Sen. Warren, but her name is Sekiko Sakai Garrison, and she told her story in a lawsuit many years ago. If you’d care to listen to the audio of a corroborating witness, you can find that audio here
Sexual harassment does not affect people’s lives? Really?
Are you truly this clueless? Its initials are C.F.P.B.
Elizabeth Warren was also a registered Republican when she did bankruptcy work for Dow. She’s not a registered Republican anymore. She also began her law career as an advocate of neoclassical economics–you know, free market theory. She is now one of the world’s leading critics of such theory.
This is why I like and admire her so much. She has learned in the most personal, hands-on way the wrongness of R/neoliberal politics. “She actively worked to fuck sick women over.” I get that, but it’s the most personally hostile way to say she had wrong beliefs–which she has now vociferously rejected. I hope we don’t start cancelling people because they were once wrong on something about which they are now deeply and actively right.
Yep. She seems to have graduated from college/law school and entered academia as a generic Republican with generic free market beliefs, but her research and writing on bankruptcy law exposed her to the abuses of the American financial system and caused her to change her mind. That speaks volumes about her, really.
Are you suggesting that Mike Bloomberg is now deeply and actively right when he continues to deny his lengthy, documented, and corroborated-by-witnesses history of misogyny and sexual harassment? Because unless that’s what you’re suggesting, your comparison there is rather inapt.
I don’t like Matthews but I give him a pass on this one. It Warren is really trying to win,relentless attacks on Bloomberg won’t get her there. Bloomberg isn’t winning and he’s not drawing any votes away from her. If she’s just running interference for Bernie,her Bloomberg attacks need to be scrutinized.
Your post suggests you may have read Ronan Farrow’s Catch and Kill. And these guys with mega bucks hire guys who hire guys to do exactly what you think they did to Tweety. My guess is you are onto something.
I read it. Did the other women say he said something similar to them? That was my point. The larger point was it’s consistent with him so I believe her. Probably the most obnoxious thing you run across on a comments thread is a post that goes after another’s and begins with “wrong”. Nitpicking a post on an irrelevant detail is for what?
I absolutely agree. While I understand Matthews can be a jerk sometimes - this is also someone who cares about the Democrats and has a pretty good understanding of what happens in Pennsylvania and some of those white suburbia districts. Going at the messenger as some are doing is what Republicans are good at - there is no need to stoop to that level. Warren is absolutely running interference for Bernie and deserves to be challenged loudly and persistently. She is trying to destroy Bloomberg - despite the benefit that Bloomberg could be to Democrats even if he doesn’t win. That is not ok - it is short sighted.
That concept is just another derisive form of division. May make a few folks feel good but it divides and there’s nothing in that for us. There are ways to address and disagree with people born from 1945 to 1960 without the use of pejorative.
You said “there’s nothing but the testimony of one woman,” which sets the matter up as the he-said/she-said, who-can-really-say-what-happened narrative that Bloomberg tried to pull off during the debate, and that Chris Matthews dug himself into in his interview with Sen. Warren. My point is that there is another on-the-record eyewitness to Bloomberg telling his pregnant employee to “kill it.” It’s not just one woman’s word against Mike Bloomberg’s. I appreciate that you believe her even without that corroboration, but it shows that Matthews’ entire line of questioning was off-base.
There are indeed. And I tend to use them. There are like, 2 people I would normally give the ‘Ok, boomer’ treatment, and they’re close friends of mine, so they’d know I’m kidding.
Chris Matthews, though? It’s all he deserves. Disagreement needs to have something of substance to disagree with, and Matthews has no substance these days, just whining about how much he wants things to go back to how they were in the Philadelphia suburbs when Kennedy was in office.
It’s still a he said she said if all the evidence is what people said. Most things are that way. If someone captured the conversation that would be different. My point, if you just fucking let it go was, there’s no concrete evidence ( it was not written or taped ) so what do we have? The fact that it sounds like the kind of crude aloof bullshit Bloomberg says all the time.
For Mathews I’s think OK asshole a better choice. I was born in the mid-zone of the boomer generation and fucking hated it when the “Greatest Generation” geezers called me a fucking hippie. I was proud of being a dirty fucking hippie and those that know my history know I was right in being one. I hate the age division thing. It’s what keeps dinosaurs like Mitch in power as we can’t get out act together to beat him.
